Resources for Monitoring Social and Economic Dimensions of Restoration Cassandra Moseley, Director, Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon 1
Integrated monitoring 2
Quick Guide Assessing, Planning, and Monitoring to Increase Local Economic Opportunities From Restoration Summer 2015 3
Ecosystem Workforce Program A QUICK GUIDE FOR PLANNING A QUALITY JOBS PROGRAM SPRING 2007 N 4
Appendix B. Restoration Contractor Reporting and Survey Form Contractor name City and state ZIP code Project title Contract no. Contract amount Project location Start date End date 1) Scope of work (limit to forty words) 2) Please fill in the following table for each type of job paid for using project funds Health insurance or Number of local Number of payments in lieu of Total person hours Total wages paid Job title employees (provide benefits provided employees your definition of local) ( yes or no ) 3) As part of this project, did you offer on-the-job training activities? (circle one) YES or NO YES or NO, if yes, please desribe: 4) Were there any job-related injuries or illnesses that resulted in lost work time while performing tasks related to this contract? (circle one) YES or NO If yes, please describe 5) Please fill in the following table for each subcontractor paid using project funds Description of work Business ZIP code Subcontract Amount ($) 5
Ecosystem Workforce Program B R I E F I N G P A P E R N U M B E R 5 5 F A L L 2 0 1 3 SOCIOECONOMIC MONITORING OF PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT: A COMPILATION OF MEASURES EMILY JANE DAVIS AND CASSANDRA MOSELEY Number of Measure Indicator of Methods proposed in reviewed sources sources Employment and business impacts Number of youth, minority group representatives, or people from low-income Community benefjt, Contractor reporting form or surveys, worker 2 communities hired to work on projects*, and type of work performed equity interviews Number of fjrms working on projects and total amount for each fjrm Distribution Federal Procurement Data System 4 of contracting opportunities Total wages paid by year, business, or project Economic output Contractor reporting form or surveys, certifjed payroll 3 as required by SCA and DB, worker interviews Percent of contracts issued under best value contracting methods using benefjt Emphasis on quality, Document review - contract solicitations 3 to local communities in review criteria community benefjt Percent of contracts that weighted non-monetary best-value criteria as equal to Emphasis on quality, Document review - contract solicitations 2 or more important than prices community benefjt Total worker hours supported by Forest Service projects; hours supported by Employment Contractor reporting form or surveys 2 http://ewp.uoregon.edu/sebenefjts. project, month, season, year Number of jobs directly supported by Forest Service projects Job creation/ Contractor reporting form or surveys, human resource 12 retention records, economic impact modeling Number of jobs/businesses created or supported utilizing nontimber forest Job creation/ Forest Service Supervisor’s Offjce, local business 1 products retention surveys Number of jobs indirectly supported by Forest Service projects Job creation/ Economic multiplier model 2 retention Percentage of project dollars captured by local fjrms, and percent increase in Local capture Federal Procurement Data System 10 the number and amount of work awarded locally over time Number and percentage of workers and businesses who are local Local job creation/ Contractor reporting form or surveys, worker 2 retention, business interviews opportunities Number and dollar value of projects offered by type of work Opportunity for Federal Procurement Data System 5 work 6 Total number of jobs that currently exist in community/region’s entire Restoration industry Contractor reporting form or surveys, database of 1 restoration sector capacity fjrms and employees
Jobs and Economic Impact Calculator 7
Jobs and Economic Impact Calculator 8
Collaborative Self Assessment Tool Table 12 Scorecard used to document indicators of collaborative capacity for accelerated restoration in focus groups Increased pace and Working at larger streamlined consensus Increased complexity/ Score spatial scales building diversity of projects Level of trust 1 We work at smaller spatial We are working on slower than typical We don’t work on ecologically We have a very low level of scales (as defined by group timelines (as defined by group and and/or socially complex issues trust overall. Describe why and what is typical for the what is typical for the Forest Service right now. Describe why not, and trust is currently limited, Forest Service on that on that particular national forest). the current “zones of and limits and if this is widespread particular national forest). Describe how much slower and why, to agreement.” or limited to a few specific Describe why and discuss and discuss both NEPA planning and members/issues. both planning acres and any other types of interaction with the treatment acres. Forest Service (pre-NEPA, post- implementation). 2 We work at typical spatial We are working on typical timelines We work on one or only a We have a lower to scales (as defined by group (as defined by group and what is few ecologically and/or social medium level of trust typical for the Forest Service on that complex issues right now and overall. Describe where and what is typical for the Forest Service on that particular national forest). Describe have not reached agreement on trust is currently limited, particular national forest). why and discuss both NEPA planning any of them. Describe them, how and if this is widespread Describe why and how, and and any other types of interaction with you are working on them, and or limited to a few specific discuss both planning acres the Forest Service (pre-NEPA, post- why those, and why not more members/issues. and treatment acres. implementation. or different ones. Describe the current “zones of and limits to agreement.” 3 We work at larger spatial We are working on faster than typical We work on several ecologically We have a fair level of scales than typical for the timelines for some projects and issues and/or social complex issues trust overall. Describe why past and/or for this forest on (as defined by group and what is right now, but have yet to reach trust is present where it some projects (as defined typical for the Forest Service on that agreement. Describe them, is, and how it manifests by group and what is typical particular national forest). Describe how you are working on them, for different members and for the Forest Service on that how much faster, why, on which and why those issues; and why issues. particular national forest). kinds of projects and issues, and you are not making progress. Describe why and how, and discuss both NEPA planning and any Describe the current “zones of discuss both planning acres other types of interaction with the and limits to agreement.” and treatment acres. Forest Service (pre-NEPA, post- implementation). 4 We work at larger spatial We are working on faster than We work on several ecologically We have a high level of scales than typical for the typical timelines on all projects and and/or social complex issues trust overall. Describe why past and/or for this forest on issues (as defined by group and right now and have reached trust is present, and how all projects (as defined by what is typical for the Forest Service agreement on some or all of it manifests for different group and what is typical for on that particular national forest). them. Describe them, how you members and issues. the Forest Service on that Describe how much faster, why, and are working on them, and why particular national forest). discuss both NEPA planning and any those issues. Describe the Describe why and how, and other types of interaction with the current “zones of and limits to discuss both planning acres Forest Service (pre-NEPA, post- agreement.” and treatment acres. implementation). 9
Key questions for getting started • Who should be the “multi” in your multiparty monitoring program? • What are the goals of the effort you are trying to monitor? How will you know if you succeed or fail? • What parts are controversial? • What parts are new or involve unknown consequences? 10
Common pitfalls • Lack of clarity about why you are monitoring • Mismatch between the data you are collecting and what you want to learn • Monitoring plans poorly matched to resources to collect and analyze the data • Leaving monitoring too late; starting too early • Collecting data without a plan for using the information to learn and adapt 11
Thank you to our funders: Joint Fire Sciences Program, Oregon Dept. of Forestry, US Forest Service Contact Information: Casa Moseley –cmoseley@uoregon.edu Ecosystem Workforce Program ewp.uoregon.edu 12
Recommend
More recommend
